Insider trading case target a major campaign donor
I have a problem with calling Steven A. Cohen a “donor”. A “donor” usually picks a side and give a decent amount of support.
What Steven A. Cohen has done isn’t donating, it’s buying off. When you are splashing money around to all parties and all kinds of Senators, most who don’t even serve the state you live in, you aren’t donating to them, you are giving them hush-money.
Steven A. Cohen, the multi-billionaire hedge fund owner implicated in an insider-trading scandal, is a major political donor who has contributed heavily to big players in both parties.
Cohen and his wife Alexandra have donated more than $450,000 to the campaign committees and leadership PACs of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and other key lawmakers during the last several election cycles, Federal Election Commission records show.
Cohen also gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association during the 2009-10 election cycle, according to a Jan. 2011 report from the Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group.
Cohen is the founder of SAC Capital Advisors and has been estimated by Forbes to be worth as much as $8 billion.
Cohen was implicated in a $276 million insider-trading case brought by the the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday.
In its criminal complaint, the SEC alleged that Mathew Martoma, a former trader with CR Intrinsic Investors — an SAC Capital Advisors affiliate — obtained inside information in 2008 about the progress of clinical trials for an Alzheimer’s drug being developed by two companies.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Martoma “illegally obtained confidential details about the clinical trial from Dr. Sidney Gilman, who served as chairman of the safety monitoring committee overseeing the trial.”
“This massive repositioning allowed CR Intrinsic and the affiliated advisory firm to reap approximately $82 million in profits and $194 million in avoided losses for a total of more than $276 million in illicit gains,” the SEC alleged.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84109.html#ixzz2CntW9FGz
John Stossel: Clinton Myths
Bill Clinton got rave reviews for his speech at the Democratic National Convention. My wife said: “Clinton was great. He made Republicans look like liars and losers.” Clinton, now a sainted elder statesman, also gets credit for the booming economy of the ’90s.
Today, he appears in an Obama commercial — in full “I feel your pain” mode — saying that Obama “has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up.”
When someone claims anyone can rebuild a society from the ground up, I say he is arrogant and delusional.
Clinton then tries to scare viewers by telling them that Republicans want to “go back to deregulation. That’s what got us in trouble in the first place.”
Ah, the progressives’ George W. Bush deregulation myth: Bush’s anti-regulation crusade caused our problems. This is a lie that seems true because of constant media repetition. In fact, Bush talked deregulation but vastly increased the regulatory state. He hired an astounding 90,000 new regulators. Under Democrats and Republicans, regulation grows.
A rare exception was repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which forbade financial companies from offering both commercial and investment banking services. You know who signed that?
He was right to sign it (backed by Treasury Secretary and later Obama adviser Larry Summers) because outlawing full-service banking put American banks at a competitive disadvantage.
Five years earlier, Clinton supported the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, which finally legalized interstate branch banking. Federal and state laws that forbade intrastate and interstate branch banking — that is, diversification — were one of the worst features of American finance. They made banks highly vulnerable to failure of specific business centers and farm communities, helping to make the Great Depression what it was. (By contrast, Canada had no such restrictions and no bank failures.)
So Clinton — not Bush — was the bank deregulator. Were those acts responsible for the financial debacle of 2008? No. Bear Stearns, Lehman, etc. were not affiliated with commercial banks.
Banks got in trouble because they filled their portfolios with securities built on shaky mortgages. And here is where Clinton doesbear responsibility.
His secretary of housing and urban development was Andrew Cuomo, now governor of New York and apparent presidential wannabe.
Cuomo, as Wayne Barrett wrote in the Village Voice in 2008, made a series of decisions that “helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.”
Barrett goes on: “Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie and Freddie were their instruments, and as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth. … (Cuomo) did more to set these forces of unregulated expansion in motion than any other secretary and then boasted about it, presenting his initiatives as crusades for racial and social justice.”
Naturally, when Clinton’s HUD secretary became New York’s attorney general, he vowed to prosecute unscrupulous lenders. I’m waiting for him to prosecute himself.
President Clinton happily takes credit for reducing America’s budget deficit and presiding over a period of strong economic growth. But this happened not because of wise leadership. Clinton had the good fortune to reside in the White House just as the high-tech information revolution kicked in and a Republican Congress stopped him from spending what Democrats wanted to spend.
Progressives say that his increase of the top tax bracket did not prevent economic growth, but it never occurs to them that growth would have been even stronger had government not confiscated that money.
Sadly, most who watched St. Bill at the DNC will never know the truth.
- DNC in 2008: Yes we can!
- DNC in 2012: Nobody else could have either.
Mitt Romney, at Wednesday’s CNN debate in Arizona.
Hey, you know what prevents unwanted pregnancy? This.
Love the insinuation that poverty IS child abuse. And the racism. That throwaway remark is quite possibly one of the worst things to come out of last night’s debate.
I could say more, but Elon James White said it much better than I ever could:
I salute you, sir.
Yep, the most racist Mitt comment from last night’s debate. The worst.
Birth control I have zero issues with (condoms, birth control pills and even plan B). I think you’d have to be an idiot to oppose those (or the Pope) so I won’t even touch up on those here. As for abortions, I’m not a big fan of abortion.
In fact, I can probably claim that I’m Pro Life. But that doesn’t mean I’m not Pro Choice, which I’ll explain later.
I 100% understand the statistics and facts behind it. Abortions prevent unwanted children which in turn lowers the poverty rates, crime rates and other daunting statistics in society.
But why can’t we work from both sides?
Why can’t we allow these services to continue (it doesn’t HAVE to be gov’t funded, there’s clearly a lot of public support and private funding for it) while at the same time educate the youth on the adverse effects of having children in broken homes or at a young age? We don’t have to be black or white about it because we don’t live in a black or white world. There are options and choices and an infinite number of ways to approach a situation and solve it. Let’s exercise that ability.
One thing I want to say about having such easy access to the abortion option is that many people become reliant on it and I totally understand that side of the argument. But there is a compromise. We can satisfy both extremes without eliminating one of them.
Perhaps Chris Rock’s (great example, I know) idea about guns and bullets can be applied here. He once said that if bullets cost thousands of dollars each than people would be less willing to just shoot up a club or use the bullet for violence. And yet, at the same time, you wouldn’t have to outlaw guns and take away peoples ability and access to them.
Maybe the same mentality can be applied to abortions and then both sides can shut the hell up.
This is the one reason I like Ron Paul’s stance on abortions. He’s personally Pro Life. He’s against them as he values human life and spent decades delivering babies as an OBGYN. He thinks what we need to do is help the people correct their morality. Not to create laws or regulations to force people one way or the other.
But at the same time, he doesn’t think that his morality or stance should be forced on to you. He doesn’t think the federal gov’t should regulate such a topic. And this is where many people misunderstand him. They think that his motion to repeal Roe vs Wade is the same as outlawing abortions.
He actually wants to give the people the choice and that’s exactly what the constitution does, or was supposed to do. This should be a law that is decided on the state and/or local level. If people in California want to kill unborn children, that’s their choice. They should be able to vote for it through their own state level legislature. And if it passes and there are those that don’t like the law, they can simply move to a state where it is outlawed.
That is or was the beauty of this country. A federal gov’t is only supposed to imposes the laws that are written in the Constitution and that’s it. Everything else is to be decided on a state level that way these small differences in ideals and morality don’t become epic battles that might ultimately determine who runs this country.
See, you can be Pro Life yet Pro Choice at the same time. I guess you can just call me Pro Liberties.